|
 Oftentimes there is a noticeable similarity to many Congressional members’ statements when they verbally project their sentiments from the floor, or when they place those statements in the Congressional Record. In the latest debate on the health care bill a definite pattern emerged indicating a well-orchestrated chorus of statements.
An investigation into the similarity of the statements was undertaken by the New York Times. It revealed that more than a dozen lawmakers made statements or had statements submitted to appear in the Congressional Record that mimicked each others'. These statements reflected exactly, or in part, what was written by Washington lobbyists in the employ of Genentech, a large biotech company.
The New York Times managed to obtain emails that showed lobbyists from Genentech who even took the time to draft two different statements that would appeal to both Democrats and Republicans, with the hopes of presenting a unified bipartisan front for passage of the health care bill. By their own admission, Genentech reports 42 members of the House, 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, used what the Times termed Genetech's talking points.
Genentech is a subsidiary of the Swiss pharmaceutical company, Roche, a veritable giant in the global healthcare industry. The Times insists evidence shows that Genentech employees supplied one of its lobbyists, Matthew L. Berzok, with the information that was then disseminated. Berzok was said to be the author of the attached documents in the emails. Berzok is a lawyer at Ryan, MacKinnon, Vasapoli & Berzok, but the emails were sent into cyberspace by lobbyists at Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, another law firm.
In one email message that preceded the November 7 House vote on the health care overhaul bill, Sonnenschein’s Senior Managing Director Todd M. Weiss was quoted as saying, “We are trying to secure as many House R’s and D’s to offer this/these statements for the record as humanly possible.” Lobbyists were told by Weiss to “conduct aggressive outreach to your contacts on the Hill to see if their bosses would offer the attached statements (or an edited version) for the record.”
Of interest are the campaign contributions to House members made by Genentech’s PAC (political action committee) for the 2008 election cycle, and the list of employees of Genentech who individually donated to Genentech’s PAC. Genentech company employees were also said to have hosted fund-raisers for some congressional lawmakers. But Vice President of Government Affairs for Genentech’s D.C. office, Evan L. Morris, said, “There was no connection between the contributions and the statements.”
What the biotech company believes to be at stake in the health care bill are opportunities provided by certain provisions for creating jobs in clinical research for new drugs and the ever burgeoning health information technology sector. For example, one provision would give the Food and Drug Administration authority to approve generic versions of drugs, something Genentech as a company would eagerly expand into.
Lawmakers allowed themselves to be manipulated, even to the point of having words put in their mouths and into the Congressional Record by a company with a vested interest in seeing the health care bill pass. Republican Representatives Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri and Joe Wilson of South Carolina, famous for his “You lie” shout to Obama, had separate statements that were exactly alike. Rep. Phil Hare’s (D-Ill.) spokesman Timothy Schlittner admitted that part of Hare’s statement “was drafted for us by Roche pharmaceutical company. It is something he agrees with.”
Ditto with Rep. Robert A. Brady (D-Penn.). His Chief of Staff, Stanley White said he received a draft statement from a lobbyist for Roche. “We were approached by the lobbyist, who asked if we would be willing to enter a statement in the Congressional Record. I asked him for a draft. I tweaked a couple of words. There’s not much reason to reinvent the wheel on a Congressional Record entry.”
There was some tweaking of the draft going on before submission to the Congressional Record, but very little. Two Democrats, Reps. Yvette D. Clarke (N.Y.) and Donald M. Payne (N.J.) differed in the upper casing of only one word. Three Republicans, K. Michael Conaway (Texas), Lynn Jenkins (Kan.), and Lee Terry (Neb.), were in unison with “I do believe the sections relating to the creation of a market for biosimilar products is one area of the bill that strikes the appropriate balance in providing lower cost options,” even though they all had criticized “rightfully so,” many other provisions of the bill.
To be fair, only one of the above-mentioned representatives received contributions from Genentech for the 2008 election cycle and that was Michael Conaway. And only one congressman, Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.) said he regretted “that the language was the same.” Pascrell said he didn’t know where his staff got the information from.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
